This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You deleted an article that had consensus to delete. I am a little miffed that the nominator, anyone in the closing discussion, or you, as the closer, did not consult the members of the FOOTY project who cleared it, the recreator (me), or the admin that desalted it for their reasoning. Will you move it back into my userspace again? GNG is already met in several people's opinions (I can only assume that the editors commenting did not look at the sources from their comments but maybe they turned into dead links or there was just the norm kneejerk reaction), but we can now wait for the subservient NFOOTY to also be met. Since it will happen sooner or later then I would like to have a copy to resubmit. If you are not comfortable with it in my user space I can copy and paste it into MSWord and request deletion after. Cptnono ( talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also a disambig page that is screwed up now. Do you want me to jump on that or will you do it yourself? Cptnono ( talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that the article has already been userfied once to your userspace, and that the subsequent deletion discussion which I closed was unanimously in favor of deletion, I don't feel comfortable userfying it again without a DRV consensus that it's at least potentially notable. If you need the raw deleted text for your own reference, I copied it to [1], which will expire in a day because of copyright/attribution issues. You know probably better than I what needs to be done with respect to any dab pages.  Sandstein  18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well considering that another admin unsalted it you should be more than forgiving. But I missed that 24hr window. I assume that you won't mind going above and beyond by copy and pasting the text and shooting it to me as an email (see the toolbox). I am not going to DRV since you had consensus to delete even if the previous consensus was to desalt. How about we just don't have drama and I don;t give you a hard time for ignoring references? All sniping aside, thank you for throwing it up at pastebin. I missed it and suck for having to ask you for assistance twice. Cptnono ( talk) 07:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've mailed the text to you.  Sandstein  08:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, dude. That is perfect. I'll sit on it for a bit and when (er... if) he gets off the bench for a professional match I'll hit the admin board to get it all sorted out.

Hi-I see there has been some controversy over the Brett Kimberlin case--not surprising. I do think it deserves an entry, particularly as Kimberlin was the subject of a 1996 book CITIZEN K and has been in the national news for three or four other different reasons. Could you give me any guidance on what is required for this article to get started? Kimberlin's convictions are a matter of public record, and he has been reported on in a number of reputable news sources over the years. Was it simply an overwhelming negative tone to the articles--an omission of facts, etc? Can you give me some insight into the primary reason for deletion? I want to devote serious effort to this one, according to the rules, but-frankly-don't want to plunge in if it's going to be a waste of time. In short, what elements and characteristics of a good faith effort on this one include, in your estimation? thanks--Oldsmobile Oldsmobile ( talk) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you refer to Brett Kimberlin, discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 17. Sorry for the delay in answering, but I recommend that you ask this question of the person who deleted the article, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. From what I see in the log, the reason for deletion was Wikipedia:CSD#G10.  Sandstein  07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

You deleted and salted web.py in October 2007, and at the time it was not notable. I think it is definitely notable now; see for example [2] and the "Who uses web.py?" section on [3].

Thank you. InverseHypercube 03:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I disagree. Web searches are never proof of notability (see WP:SOURCESEARCH) and neither is who uses anything ( WP:INHERIT). What is needed for notability is that somebody who is not related to the subject must have written about the subject in a reliable source in some detail, see WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I linked to a Google Books search, not a web search. InverseHypercube 09:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, it's still a page of search results and not a specific reliable source covering the subject in some detail.  Sandstein  09:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I happened upon this AfD that you closed and was just wondering, did you not consider relisting as an option worth pursuing here? There was only a single !vote, which also gave the option to Move and not just to delete. Technically this should have been relisted, no? -- œ ^™ 01:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I normally relist AfDs only if there is a difference of opinion which continued discussion could resolve. But here, two people (the nominator and another editor) supported deletion and another editor was neutral. That said, we're close to a WP:PROD situation here, so if another discussion in a more or less public forum concludes that the topic is notable because of coverage in reliable sources, and should be moved instead of deleted, I'm not averse to restoring the page.  Sandstein  10:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you and I both missed this. I've asked the closing admin to relist. Would you be willing to help me expand the article to demonstrate that BLP1E doesn't apply, and GNG does? Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 03:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind... should have read his page more carefully first. Will opine in the DRV. Jclemens ( talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I missed the deletion discussion too. I'll try to expand the article somewhat after it's been restored from the redirect. Though there is apparently surprisingly little reliable biographical information about Williams.  Sandstein  09:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't bother me. The fact that there's sufficient info about her as an actress to meet the GNG is sufficient. Fact is, I don't really WANT the full details of her life, nor do I think that not having them impairs the article: she's an actress, plays one notable role, but has received plenty of coverage for that, so NPOV actually says we should spend virtually the entire article on that, if we're talking about aspects of her life in proportion to their appearances in independent RS'es... Jclemens ( talk) 15:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for pitching in, it's really appreciated. Regards, Skomorokh 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be able to write much more than this brief entry (just in case others wait for me to complete the "In the news" section). Thank you, too, for your work in publishing the Signpost!  Sandstein  16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

To distract you from all the dumb stuff hitting (and sometimes sliding off) your talk page. GraemeL (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  22:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to help me get the remaining episodes of Game of Thrones season 1 to GA? I'm shooting to make the entire lot a Good Topic before Season 2 premieres, but I see no way to get there at this rate without help... Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sounds interesting. After looking at Template:Game of Thrones Episodes, most seem to be in a pretty good state already. What still needs to be done, and where do you suggest that I start?  Sandstein  07:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The biggest outstanding problems I see with the articles are...

1) Replacing or augmenting fansites with RS whenever possible. This has been the single biggest problem in this series: HBO's official sites are media-heavy/text-light, so getting RS production information has been somewhat of a challenge.

2) Implementing suggestions from the existing "GA1" reviews across the rest of the articles. I'd like to bring them all up to a consistent quality. For example, Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things's reviewer noted that the guest star list was too long, essentially a rehash of the IMDB list. I fixed that there, but now ought to go back and fix that in all the other places, where no one had pointed it out to me in previous reviews.

Other than that, I basically just need someone else who will jump in if I happen to be too busy when someone picks one of the episodes up for a review. The queue length seems to have been running about three months (!), but I'm hoping we can attract some additionally interested people. Oh, and then, of course, we will need to create a "season one" episode article, and truncate the "list of game of thrones" episodes to exclude the episode summaries. Jclemens-public ( talk) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to help out. Is there some overview as to where the articles are in the review process?  Sandstein  19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and get one organized somewhere... Jclemens ( talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've re-nom'ed Episode 1 ( Winter Is Coming) and 5 ( The Wolf and the Lion) which Malleus has agreed to review. I've nomed 7-10 ( You Win or You Die, The Pointy End, Baelor, Fire and Blood), but haven't really looked through them in detail yet to incorporate past feedback. I'm going to work on #5 next, myself. Jclemens ( talk) 19:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've watchlisted the nomination pages and will try to help out with addressing any concerns that may be raised. What do you mean by "create a 'season one' episode", and why do you think the synopses need to be removed from List of Game of Thrones episodes?  Sandstein  20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agh, I typed the wrong thing, corrected above episode -> article. Once a television show goes more than one season, the hierarchy changes:

• Single season/current: List of Game of Thrones episodes -> (episode articles, e.g. Baelor)
• Multiple season/forthcoming in the spring: List of Game of Thrones episodes -> Season articles -> episode articles for that season. In these arrangements, the episode synopses are moved into the season articles, such that the parent list article doesn't get too long.

I've asked at WT:GT which approach for an overview article is preferred. Jclemens ( talk) 20:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you were responsible for creating the template for appealing AE actions. Recently I was blocked for violation of a topic ban, but expressed my belief that it was covered as an exemption. An informal discussion began on my user talk page with he admin who issued the block when another admin who had issued an earlier block joined the discussion and expressed his opinion that my comment that lead to the block was a violation of the topic ban. After a little more time discussing with those two admins I decided to file an appeal to have an outside editor review the case using the template.

My concern is that the admin who jumped into the discussion on my user talk page to support the blocking admin's actions made a comment on my appeal in the section for uninvolved admins. Here is where the template becomes relevant. The procedural notes included at the top of the template provide some criteria for what makes an admin involved for the purposes of an AE appeal. Part of that criteria includes taking part "in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action" and I believed this applied to the admin who had clearly expressed support for the blocking admin on my talk page. I cited that language in an e-mail to the admin politely requesting he move his comment to the section for involved editors, but did not get a response.

When my block expired I expressed my position in the appeal that the admin was an involved editor. The appeal was ultimately declined by an outside admin, but in the closing statement that admin said my comments were not appropriate and claimed the admin was not involved. I again cited the wording in the template to that admin for why I thought he was involved and he accused me of wikilawyering.

I do not think, given the discussion I had with an ArbCom member, that my appeal would be seen as having been negatively effected by this, but I would like to get the matter straight. Do you believe the wording in the template would mean the admin was an involved editor in this case? If so, what action would you suggest?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but after a brief look at the AE thread I think that you should take seriously the concern of others that you are engaging in unhelpful wikilawyering. What matters is that, in the appeal thread, not a single other editor has so far supported your appeal, which means that the appeal will likely fail because there is no consensus to overturn your sanction. Until and unless this changes, the point of whether one particular administrator is involved or uninvolved is not relevant to the outcome of the appeal, and continuing to discuss this matter at this point looks like a waste of time to me.  Sandstein  10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually said I did not think it would be seen as having any effect on my appeal. My question is whether you think the criteria given in the procedural notes would make the editor an involved admin. Even if the result of my appeal is the same there is certainly still reason to be concerned about a violation of WP:INVOLVED, as this admin or others may engage in similar actions again if they think it is not a violation. So, I am asking for clarification on WP:INVOLVED as it applies to the appeal of my block.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to ask somebody else's opinion, as I don't think that investigating this further would serve any useful purpose.  Sandstein  16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen the Brett Kimberlin article that was deleted. I would like to contribute to a new attempt. Should I begin by creating a stub? If so, how do I submit it, since it is currently blocked? It sounds as if there is no controversy over the justification for the entry or the block. I want to start fresh and try for a balanced approach to this subject. This could cover a. identity, background and origins, b. Accusations about Indianapolis incidents c. Brett Kimberlin's version d. Quayle controversy and Citizen K book e. Post prison f. Return to prison e. Post prison years including voting machine campaign, punk band, and non-profit. Would this be a good start? Any guidance appreciated, thanks. Oldsmobile ( talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  07:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really sure who I should be telling, but I just noticed this article [4] which might be interesting for Signpost: In the News. Wikipedia leads to the downfall of jury trials? -- 99of9 ( talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a Signpost regular, but the place to discuss this would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Personally, I don't think this merits coverage - Wikipedia is only mentioned in passing as one example of websites that jurors can get information from.  Sandstein  13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir - I notice you have deleted the article on Kate Fitzgerald. You may not be aware that this is a major media matter in Ireland right now, and has been for the past month. Kate was well known in Irish politics and I would be quite happy to edit the article to emphasis her role in life and her importance over here. However, as it stands the article has been deleted. Given that it's threatening the Irish paper of record it has become quite a scandal, and it is impossible to document this event without some reference to Kate. Please consider contacting me on this post haste, as many people are looking for the article as the story increases in traction over here.

I am aware that wikipedia is not the news, but her influence was far greater than that and indeed far greater than the article reflects - I will be more than happy to edit it and correct it where it errs but it is vital it goes back up. Indeed, even though her death is currently the focus of a lot of media attention, it shouldn't be forgotten she set records in Irish and american politics as being the youngest chariperson of Irish democrats abroad and was a major Irish media pundit. Please respond ASAP.

Yours,

Dr. David Robert Grimes. Drg85 ( talk) 13:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr Grimes, the article on Kate Fitzgerald was deleted by consensus in a community discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Fitzgerald (2nd nomination). What you say might have been useful as a contribution to that now-closed discussion, but it does not convince me that I erred in concluding that there was a consensus among participants, viewed in the light of Wikipedia's applicable rules, to delete the article. To contest this assessment, you would need to request a community review of that outcome on the page WP:DRV.  Sandstein  13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply, and I believe their is grounds for a review - you may not be aware of this, but the reason Kate's story is so big is she worked for a company called the communications clinic - they are quite simply the biggest PR firm in Ireland. The reason this has become such a huge irish issue is their influence has been stifling - they have managed to get articles retracted, and major media organisations to be silenced, without having to recourse to any legal threat. This has resulted in an Irish media war - I should also point out that one of the biggest issues is about the story being silenced and that I am afraid the same has happened in this instance - the company in question have an online presence and have edited wikipedia articles for politicians and companies they represent. All of this is documented, and I can provide you with the required links and citations if you require them - but I feel the discussion on the page may be heavily weighted towards vested interests, violating NPOV somewhat.

Generally I only come on wikipedia to edit science articles, but this is such a huge issue in Ireland and it would be dreadful if it was not shown on wikipedia despite it being covered all over Irish and even UK media.. the story has been among the most popular on the Irish times site this year, so the sudden censoring of it at the behest of a PR firm devoid of legal threats has been shocking to an Irish audience.

Just one such summation is shown here - the issue is deeply related to the veracity of irish media, so please do consider this as you are a much more skilled editor than I am.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kates-great-potential-lost-to-societys-intolerance-for-any-sign-of-human-frailty-2953479.html

Thanks. Hope to hear back soon.

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome to request review at WP:DRV, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting perceived wrongs in society or to advance any particular point of view, as you appear to argue it should, and the article will not be restored on that basis. Instead, any arguments you make should be based on our inclusion rules, e.g., WP:BIO and WP:1E.  Sandstein  14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the article Journal of Pakistan Medical Students. Is it possible if I can have access to the deleted content of the article for personal use? Mar4d ( talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've pasted a copy to http://pastebin.com/MpPZebYX. It will expire in a day, because of copyright/attribution issues.  Sandstein  08:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Bloody Knuckles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Table and Quarter ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say how fully I support your well opined and researched close of this AFD and for the indef block of the SPA.

• Happy holidays - and many thanks for your contribution to the project over the last half decade. Best wishes - Youreallycan ( talk) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for doing the right thing. More importantly, I think Mr. Abbas probably really appreciates it. Cla68 ( talk) 12:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the outcome, but I respect that you have made a fair judgement based on the views and arguments presented within the AfD page. Bikerprof ( talk) 23:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that.  Sandstein  08:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with close

I noticed that in the deletion you say:

At WP:DPAFD, the policy provides that "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures − where the discussions have no rough consensus, but also have no editor opposing the deletion − may be deleted after discussions have been completed", which does not apply to this case.

If you look at the history of the policy page, however, that text was added [ on December 24], just before you closed the AFD. Previously, only the sentence before that was present, which says:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

As you'll notice, that sentence has no qualifier about "no editor closing the deletion", so would indeed apply in this case. Given the timing of the change, the whole thing looks very suspicious--I wonder if someone added that text specifically to try to kill this AFD. I just took it out again, considering that it hasn't been discussed in the deletion policy talkpage.

You closed it as Delete anyway, but you might want to consider modifying the close a bit to take this into account. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 21:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, and I am embarrassed to say that I appear to have overlooked the first (and now only) remaining sentence. But as you say, this has no impact on the outcome of the closure - indeed it supports the deletion of the article - so I don't think a modification of the closing rationale is required. I'll copy this thread from my talk page to the AfD talk page, though.  Sandstein  09:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I see that you have closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 MRT train disrputions with a delete result, but the article is still around 2011 MRT train disruptions with the AFD still at the top of the page. Apparently the AFD had a typo when it was created, so you might want to remove the correct article as well. Zhanzhao ( talk) 11:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; done.  Sandstein  12:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Could you take a look here [5]. I understand from looking into Tuscumbia's page that you topic-banned him for battleground conduct because Tuscumbia denied validity to sources based on ethnic origin → [6], [7]. Tuscumbia seems to be at it again: line 73 - ""Neutral sources"? Are you kidding? Bournoutian, Cheterian, Gilanentz? Come on... These are Armenian authors who are likely to indicate the Armenian names in their writings rather than the correct names;" [8], [9]. Thanks. Winterbliss ( talk) 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not currently active in AE, because on account of inadequate Arbitration Committee support I consider it to be ineffective. I'm sorry to say that this means that I refrain from commenting on the matter.  Sandstein  19:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Though your vigilance is appreciated, your edit here [10] is also unsourced. I recommend you see here [11] and here [12]. I draw your attention to the citation of Ruth Edwards Kilgour's book.

Whilst it is good to improve articles, you seem to have simply removed an entire passage of relevant details (you did draw my attention to some irrelevancies which I've corrected). But you also reverted it to an equally unsourced edit. Take a look at the whole article; if you'd like, you can start helping by adding citations wherever you think they are needed, but please don't just go blanking things. I will be assuming good faith from you. Djathink imacowboy ^(yell) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)